- What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.
- Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS
- “True Americanism” (1915).
Strong, responsible unions are essential to industrial fair play. Without them the labor bargain is wholly one-sided. The parties to the labor contract must be nearly equal in strength if justice is to be worked out, and this means that the workers must be organized and that their organizations must be recognized by employers as a condition precedent to industrial peace.
Reported in Osmond Kessler Fraenkel, Clarence Martin Lewis, The Curse of Bigness: Miscellaneous Papers of Louis D. Brandeis (1965), p. 43
Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business have become an institution-an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state. The typical business corporation of the last century, owned by a small group of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size by their private wealth, is being supplanted by huge concerns in which the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and the property of tens of hundreds of thousands of investors are subjected, through the corporate mechanism, to the control of a few men. Ownership has been separated from control; and this separation has removed many of the checks which formerly operated to curb the misuse of wealth and power. And, as ownership of the shares is becoming continually more dispersed, the power which formerly accompanied ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few... [and] coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.
Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS
- Dissent, Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933), at 565-67.
Brandeis, who predicted the crash of 1929 and would have predicted the crash of 2008, was the most far-seeing prophet of economic regulation in an age of financial crisis and the most ferocious critic of “the curse of bigness” in an age that anticipated “too big to fail.”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75902/why-brandeis-matters
Brandeis’s legacy as an economic prophet rests on Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It, the remarkable book that he published in 1914, based on a series of prescient articles he had written the previous year for Harper’s. Those articles were written to promote the findings of the Pujo Committee, a House banking subcommittee in 1912 headed by Arsène Pujo of Louisiana. Convened to investigate the excesses of the “money trust,” the Pujo Committee concluded that a small group of Wall Street bankers had abused the public’s trust by consolidating their control over banks and industries, choking off credit and competition in the process. Brandeis set out to enumerate the ways that “our financial oligarchy” threatened not only the American economy but also American democracy.
“The American people have as little need of oligarchy in business as in politics,” Brandeis declared.
In 1890, there was no national constituency about the dangers of corporate bigness; but twenty years later the Progressive movement had been so successful that presidential candidates in both parties crusaded against the money trusts, although they disagreed about the appropriate responses
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75902/why-brandeis-matters
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS AND OTHER QUOTES
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The villain of Other People’s Money was not Roosevelt’s nemesis, the industrial monopolist John D. Rockefeller. It was Brandeis’s nemesis, the financial oligarch J. P. Morgan. “And to think, he wasn’t even a rich man,”Rockefeller reportedly said when Morgan died in 1913 and his estate was reported to be worth $80 million, compared to Rockefeller’s worth of almost a billion. Rockefeller missed the point that Brandeis grasped. Morgan’s power came not from his own money, but from the billions of dollars of what Brandeis unforgettably called “other people’s money” that he controlled. By 1911, according to some estimates, Morgan controlled 40 percent of the capital raised in America.
ReplyDeleteHow did Morgan and his fellow oligarchs leverage themselves into this kind of power? Brandeis accused investment bankers of using other people’s money to take control of large companies which they then used to promote their own interests rather than the public interest. Other People’s Money begins by warning about the dangers of merging the functions of the commercial banker and the investment banker. The original—and proper—function of the investment banker, Brandeis says, was that of a dealer in stocks and bonds. People needed to invest their savings; investment bankers would advise them about which securities were the soundest investments. But then investment bankers such as J.P. Morgan began to form and to control massive trusts—such as the railroad trusts—that manufactured and promoted stocks and bonds and then sold them back to J. P. Morgan & Co. itself with money borrowed from the many commercial banks that Morgan also controlled. “Can there be real bargaining,” Brandeis asked, “where the same man is on both sides of a trade?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75902/why-brandeis-matters
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943
ReplyDeleteFrank Bourgin wrote a doctoral dissertation in the 1940's that argued that, contrary to our national mythology of laissez-faire, the early American government engaged in active and extensive measures to promote industrial and commercial progress. His dissertation was rejected by the Univ. of Chicago in 1945 and Bourgin's hopes of an academic career were crushed. In 1985, Bourgin brought his dissertation to the attention of historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who called it ""path-breaking work."" The Univ. of Chicago has since reversed its decision and awarded Bourgin a Ph.D.
ReplyDeleteHe argues that the Founding Fathers were influenced by the mercantilist notions that prevailed at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and that the Constitution was actually designed to create a strong, activist central government. In particular, Bourgin aruges, the Convention sought to create a strong executive officer, the President. To bolster his point, Bourgin analyzes Alexander Hamilton's plan for a national bank and his efforts for industrial development, Thomas Jefferson's land policies, and Albert Gallatin's and John Quincy Adams' programs for developing a national transportation network. Bourgin insists that these early American leaders were actually engaged in ""national planning.""
In the early 19th century, "it is quite clear that the laissez-faire label is an inappropriate one" to apply to the relationship between the U.S. government and industry
DeleteDaniel Webster, the Boston Associates, and the U.S. Government's Role in the Industrializing Process, 1815–183
Notable examples of government intervention in the period prior to the Civil War include the establishment of the Patent Office in 1802; the establishment of the Office of Standard Weights and Measures in 1830; the creation of the Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1807 and other measures to improve river and harbor navigation; the various Army expeditions to the west, beginning with Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery in 1804 and continuing into the 1870s, almost always under the direction of an officer from the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, and which provided crucial information for the overland pioneers that followed; the assignment of Army Engineer officers to assist or direct the surveying and construction of the early railroads and canals; the establishment of the First Bank of the United States and Second Bank of the United States as well as various protectionist measures (e.g., the tariff of 1828). Several of these proposals met with serious opposition, and required a great deal of horse-trading to be enacted into law.
DeleteMost of the early opponents of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States subscribed to the American School. This school of thought was inspired by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a government-sponsored bank and increased tariffs to favor northern industrial interests. Following Hamilton's death, the more abiding protectionist influence in the antebellum period came from Henry Clay and his American System.
Deleten the mid-19th century, the United States followed the Whig tradition of economic nationalism, which included increased state control, regulation, and macroeconomic development of infrastructure
DeletePublic works such as the provision and regulation transportation such as railroads took effect. The Pacific Railway Acts provided the development of the First Transcontinental Railroad
Following the Civil War, the movement towards a mixed economy accelerated. Protectionism increased with the McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897. Government regulation of the economy expanded with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
The Progressive Era saw the enactment of more controls on the economy, as evidenced by the Wilson Administration's New Freedom program.
Following World War I and the Great Depression, the United States turned to a mixed economy, which combined free enterprise with a progressive income tax, and in which, from time to time, the government stepped in to support and protect American industry from competition from overseas. For example, in the 1980s, the government sought to protect the automobile industry by "voluntary" export restrictions from Japan.
American System (economic plan)
ReplyDeleteThe American System, originally called "The American Way", was an economic plan that played a prominent role in American policy during the first half of the 19th century. Rooted in the "American School" ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the plan "consisted of three mutually reinforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other 'internal improvements' to develop profitable markets for agriculture."
A plan to strengthen and unify the nation, the American System was advanced by the Whig Party and a number of leading politicians including Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams. The System was a new form of federalism that included:
Support for a high tariff to protect American industries and generate revenue for the federal government
Maintenance of high public land prices to generate federal revenue
Preservation of the Bank of the United States to stabilize the currency and rein in risky state and local banks
Development of a system of internal improvements (such as roads and canals) which would knit the nation together and be financed by the tariff and land sales revenues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29
Portions of the American System were enacted by the United States Congress. The Second Bank of the United States was rechartered in 1816 for 20 years. High tariffs were first suggested by Alexander Hamilton in his 1791 Report on Manufactures but were not approved by Congress until the Tariff of 1816. Tariffs were subsequently raised until they peaked in 1828 after the so-called Tariff of Abominations. After the Nullification Crisis in 1833, tariffs remained the same rate until the Civil War. However, the national system of internal improvements was never adequately funded; the failure to do so was due in part to sectional jealousies and constitutional squabbles about such expenditures.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Speeches_ClayAmericanSystem.htm
Annual Message of 1815 (Seven Points)
ReplyDeleteFunds for national defense
Frigates for the Navy
A standing army and federal control of the militia
Federal aid for building roads and canals
A protective tariff to encourage manufacturers
Re-establishing the National Bank
Federal assumption of some state debt
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29457
Banking panics in the United States
1792
1796–97
1819
1825
1837
1847
1857
1866
1873
1884
1890 (Baring crisis)
1893
1896
1901
1907
1910-11
1929
2007-08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economic_disasters_in_the_United_States
Panic of 1826
DeleteThe Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. The panic sparked New York State to bring in extensive legislation seeking to regulate financial companies and protect investor interests. These regulations, legislations, and precedents like the shareholder derivative precedent were some of the first ever enacted in America and provided the basis for today’s financial regulations after the panic of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1826